Socrates says “know thyself”: I say which self?

coberst

Well-Known Member
Messages
427
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Socrates says “know thyself”: I say which self?

I don’t know what happened to me. I was beside my self with worry.

My pet dog Fido uses his imagination to create image schemas to help him to comprehend and move about in his world. I use my imagination in much the same way but because my species can create abstract concepts I also use my imagination to create these abstract concepts.

I have the ability to use linguistic metaphors to help me comprehend my world and also my cognitive processes uses conceptual metaphors (structures from concrete experience) to construct abstract ideas while I am unconscious of this happening.

The concrete concepts, structured from experience, become primary metaphors that my unconscious imagination utilizes to construct image schemas for my abstract ideas.

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has developed a set of theories using these metaphors, both linguistic, and conceptual to examine such abstract concepts as what is self, time, causality, etc.

If we examine linguistic metaphors that are common to our culture regarding “self” we can determine much information regarding what we normally think about this matter.

SGCS inform me that we have many different common metaphors for “self”:

The General Subject Self “A person is divided into a Subject and one or more Selves.” The Subject experiences consciousness only in real time. This Subject is the center of reason, will, and judgment. The Subject is thought of as the essential self that encompasses our self as a person.

The Physical-Object Self“Self-control and object control are inseparable experiences from early childhood…Self Control is Object Control.”I lifted my hand—I lost my voice—I couldn’t control myself—the boy picked himself up from the ground.

The Locational Self I was besides my self with worry.

The above quotes from Philosophy in the Flesh by Lakoff and Johnson

We are born recognizing our self as a ‘me’. The ‘me’ is an object before ‘me’ becomes ‘I’, i.e. an executive subject. Only after this happens in an infant’s life can s/he “back away” from her or him self.

The child discovers first that s/he is a social product. Perhaps this will show us why we are so often mere puppets jerked around by alien symbols and sounds. Perhaps this is why we are so often just blind ideologues (blindly partisan).

In order to separate the ego from the world it seems that the ego must have a rallying point. It must have a flag about which to rally. That flag is the “I”. The pronoun ‘I’ is the symbolic rallying point for the human’s ego; it is the precise designation of self-hood. It is concluded by those who study such matters that the ‘I’ “must take shape linguistically”. The self or ego “is largely a verbal edifice”.

“The “I” signals nothing less than the beginning of the birth of values into a world of powerful caprice…The personal pronoun is the rallying point for self-consciousness.” The wedding of the nervous ability to delay response, with the pronoun “I”, unleashed a new type of animal; the human species began. The ‘I’ represents the birth of values.

Upon the discovery of the “I” the infant human becomes a precise form, which is the focus of self-control. The creatures previous to the arrival of humans in the chain of evolution had an instinctive center within itself. When our species discovered the “I” and its associated self-control centers a dual reality occurred. “The animal not only loses its instinctive center within itself; it also becomes somewhat split against itself.”

Becker, the winner of the Pulitzer for “The Birth and Death of Meaning”, notes that Kant was perhaps the first to impress upon us the importance of the fact that the infant becomes conscious first of itself as a “me” and then only as “I”. This order of discover has been shown to be universal.

I have noticed when an infant becomes an ‘I’, when all of a sudden they behave in a self-conscious manner. Have you noticed such a change taking place in a child?

Quotes from The Birth and Death of Meaning—Ernest Becker
 
As a counterpoint, I would like you to consider the Kierkegaardian view of the self:

Kierkegaard thought The Sickness Unto Death was the best book he ever wrote, an opinion that not all of his readers now share. The theme is again, dispair - a state of mind most people are in for most of the time, even if they are not consciously aware of it.

Fortunately, the book tells us how to cope. As human beings,we are all given a unique individual self. For most people, this self is given by nature; but for a Christian, it is a product of a relation to God. Feelings of dispair are experienced by both, in different forms. Normally we assume that dispair is a feeling that has a specific cause - like being abandoned by a lover.

As the human self progresses, it understands more about everything, including itself. But people who drift through life without recognizing the importance of this task will never become authentic human beings. Even a brilliant scholar, without this kind of self-awareness, can never become a successful human being, only some sort of brilliant analytical automaton.

The same is true of such other human attributes as sensitivity and the will. If your sensitive nature is directed at something impossibly large, like "all humanity", then it will become unreal and inhuman. "The Will" should also be exercised in immediate situations. The more "will" someone possesses, the more self is attained. But most people are without willpower. They meander through life and avoid the challenging issue of who they are. Kierkegaard's view on will parallel those of several other 19th century philosophers - in particular Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900).

Vague feelings of dispair are an inevitable by-product of a "willful" neglect of the self. For many, this is a deliberate strategy - to avoid the problem by ignoring. it. For others, the avoidance strategy involves inventing some new self that they picture to themselves as a possibility never seriously achieved. Such individuals become "strangers" to themselves and on occasion become suicidal.

Ref: Introducing Kierkaegaard, Dave Robinson, Icon Books, 2006, p119-123.

Coberst, how do you react to this interpretation of the self as compared with Becker's ?
 
As a counterpoint, I would like you to consider the Kierkegaardian view of the self:



Coberst, how do you react to this interpretation of the self as compared with Becker's ?

Becker holds K in high regard. Becker devotes a chapter "The Psychoanalyst Kierkegaard" in his Pulitzer Prize winning Denial of Death.

To quote Becker: "In the last few decades a new discovery of K has been taking place, a discovery that is momentous because it links him into the whole structure of knowledge in the humanities of our time...Nowhere is the merger of religious and psychiatric categories clearer than in the work of K...But ironically, it was not until the epoch of the scientific atheist Freud that we could see the scientific stature of the theologian K's work." I have substituted K for Kierkegaard.
 
“The “I” signals nothing less than the beginning of the birth of values into a world of powerful caprice…The personal pronoun is the rallying point for self-consciousness.” The wedding of the nervous ability to delay response, with the pronoun “I”, unleashed a new type of animal; the human species began. The ‘I’ represents the birth of values.

Upon the discovery of the “I” the infant human becomes a precise form, which is the focus of self-control. The creatures previous to the arrival of humans in the chain of evolution had an instinctive center within itself. When our species discovered the “I” and its associated self-control centers a dual reality occurred. “The animal not only loses its instinctive center within itself; it also becomes somewhat split against itself.”

Becker, the winner of the Pulitzer for “The Birth and Death of Meaning”, notes that Kant was perhaps the first to impress upon us the importance of the fact that the infant becomes conscious first of itself as a “me” and then only as “I”. This order of discover has been shown to be universal.

I have noticed when an infant becomes an ‘I’, when all of a sudden they behave in a self-conscious manner. Have you noticed such a change taking place in a child?

Quotes from The Birth and Death of Meaning—Ernest Becker
Coberst,
How is the "I" consciousness of an animal differs from the "I" consciousness of a human according to Becker? It is not clear to me from your quote of Becker.
 
Coberst,
How is the "I" consciousness of an animal differs from the "I" consciousness of a human according to Becker? It is not clear to me from your quote of Becker.

Extended consciousness

Antonio Damasio is a scientist who has set out to organize a scientific study of human consciousness. Damasio utilizes a rather unique method that involves careful observation of individuals who have been deprived of some aspects of consciousness because of brain lesions caused by accidents. He studies brain dysfunction caused by such things as strokes and accidents.

Damasio finds that “nearly all the sites of brain damage associated with a significant disruption of core consciousness share one important trait…these structures are of old evolutionary vintage, they are present in numerous nonhuman species, and they mature early in individual human development.”

That is to say that his evidence indicates that core consciousness is centered about the brain’s physical areas that developed very early in the evolution of life on our planet, i.e. human core consciousness is directly evolved from early animal forms.

The basic facts made available for analysis give testimony to the hypothesis that consciousness is not a monolith. Most importantly there is an abrupt division between what is identified as core consciousness and extended consciousness. There are also distinguishing levels within extended consciousness it self. When core consciousness fails then extended consciousness follows.

Many non human creatures have emotions—“human emotions however have evolved to making connections to complex ideas, values, principles, and judgments”—thus human emotion is special—the impact of feelings on humans is the result of consciousness—a distinct difference between feeling and knowing a feeling—“neither the emotion or the feeling caused by the emotion is conscious”—these things happen in a biological state—there are three stages here; emotion, feeling, and consciousness of feeling—consciousness must be present if feelings have an influence beyond the here and the now—consciousness is tooted in the representation of the body.

We need not be conscious of the emotion or the inducer of the emotion—we are about as effective in stopping an emotion as in stopping a sneeze.

“Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Core consciousness—“occurs when the brain’s representation devices generate an imaged, nonverbal account of how the organism’s own state is affected by the organism’s processing of an object, and when this process enhances the image of the causative object, thus placing it saliently in a spatial and temporal context”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes core consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Humans have extended consciousness, which takes core consciousness to the level of self consciousness and the awareness of mortality.

Extended consciousness is the consciousness we normally speak of and that is the autobiographical consciousness possessed by humans.

“Extended consciousness goes beyond the here and now of core consciousness. Extended consciousness places these same experiences in a broader canvas and over a longer period of time. Extended consciousness still hinges on the same core “you”. But that “you” is now connected to the lived past and anticipated future that are part of your autobiographical record…autobiographical memories are objects, and the brain treats them as such, allows each of them to relate to the organism in the manner described for core consciousness, and thus allows each of them to generate a pulse of core consciousness, a sense of self knowing.”

This is why we have the ability to learn and the ability to retain records of experiences. “The ability to reactivate those records in such a way that, as objects, they, too, can generate “a sense of self knowing,” and thus be known”.


Quotes from The Feeling of what Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness by Antonio Damasio
 
Thanks Coberst.

I am still rather hazy about the difference between human and animal consciousness.

It appears to me that you are saying that extended consciousness is what distinguish humans from animals. And it seems that this difference is related to "Many non human creatures have emotions—“human emotions however have evolved to making connections to complex ideas, values, principles, and judgments”—thus human emotion is special".

Is it possible for some animals like e.g. dolphins and chimps to have a certain amount of extended consciousness and for certain humans e.g. those with genetic disorders that rendered them with very low intelligence and functional abilities, not to have extended consciousness?
 
Is it possible for some animals like e.g. dolphins and chimps to have a certain amount of extended consciousness and for certain humans e.g. those with genetic disorders that rendered them with very low intelligence and functional abilities, not to have extended consciousness?

I guess that anyhing is possible.
 
What now the "self" of humans and animals? Perhaps Bertrand Russell could chip in?

Good question, Oat.

At first thought one might assume that animals have no sense of self. Please take a look at the Kierkagaardian view of the self and you might agree.

On the other hand, it is possible that animals might have a sense of self that we do not yet understand. They might even have a sense of their creator. They might believe having a nice cup of cat food, a bowl of water, a kitty box and a nice warm lap of their human companion are what it takes to be in touch with their creator, and they might purrr..... how is that for some profound philosophy {: - 0 )
 
Good question, Oat.

At first thought one might assume that animals have no sense of self. Please take a look at the Kierkagaardian view of the self and you might agree.

On the other hand, it is possible that animals might have a sense of self that we do not yet understand. They might even have a sense of their creator. They might believe having a nice cup of cat food, a bowl of water, a kitty box and a nice warm lap of their human companion are what it takes to be in touch with their creator, and they might purrr..... how is that for some profound philosophy {: - 0 )
I not sure what to make of your second paragraph. It is not something I would expect from you.

Anyway, all animals like humans, have the instinct of self-preservation. So at the very least, shouldn't animals have some basic sense of "self"?

For so long have humans tried to argue that they do not belong to the category of animals. Discoveries in science however has gradually blurred such distinction. I guess philosophy has yet to catch up with science.
 
Interesting that Kierkegaard should devote so much to the issue of despair, given that St. Evagrius of Pontus included " λΰπη" (despair) in his list of eight deadly passions. This was later misinterpreted among Western legalists as "deadly sins", and the number reduced to seven.[FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]
 
I am not too fun of the psychological slogan of "Know thyself." We never know what our real self is. We have experienced so many changes throughout the years of our lives, that we have lost track of what our self is, if we could have ever known what it really was. What if we could figure or find out what our self is? It could be very damaging to what we have become. Esoterically, it could be very disappointing to find out we have been living the self of another and not, naturally, the one that has been assigned to us to live or to be. The bottom line therefore, is not to botther knowing oneself but be aware that what one is what one has become.
Ben
 
it could be very disappointing to find out we have been living the self of another and not, naturally, the one that has been assigned to us to live or to be. The bottom line therefore, is not to botther knowing oneself but be aware that what one is what one has become.
Ben

You think we have been "assigned" a self?

Knowing oneself, self-knowledge, is key to enlightenment.

"What one has become" could be way off track, depending upon your path in life...
 
We never know what our real self is.

This conflates with Self [individual Vector point in space occupied by a living-life-force aka a soul] with Human Ego traits and preferences.

Human Ego traits and preferences change according to the facilities accrued from past actions and past lives.

There are 8,400,000 species of life forms** ---at a soul earns the right to occupy the post of enlivening the corporal body when it is available to be the default destined next birth inaccord with the Fruits (Phalam) of ones' acts (Karma) (aka, Karma Phalam).

Funny how even when unknowers of the explicit delineations given in the famous Bhagavad-gita et al, about the construct of the "Soul's" eternal constitution nor the workings of "Karma" (aka, work or actions)---instinctually conceed that to be born with the body and concominant sensibilities of any species of life below Humans is "Ugra-Karma" (bad -karma).

The classical means [and the only way available as per my investigations] to know one's inner self & soul too [versus, ones' ego constructs and affectations] is:

To Periodically:
a] Sit quitely, and thus
b] Halt any new stimulai occupying your attention,
c] stop recalling past memories, and simultaniously also,
d] Stop your present calculations of schemes to acquire the latest goals in your life,

And thus, with the above accomplished . . . be witness & realise that you are still present yet without distraction from outside nor from past thoughts and worries!

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/classical-silent-mantra-meditation-12727.html
This is called: Classical Silent Mantra Meditation
The samurai called it their secret weapon (Zazen) that allowed for their state of "Mushin". Thus, they were in the zone during engagements. Their This allowed undistracted focus of attention.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In Zen Buddhism, zazen (literally "seated meditation") is a meditative discipline practitioners perform to calm the body and the mind, and be able to concentrate enough to experience insight into the nature of existence and thereby gain enlightenment (satori).
..........................

Enlightenment! Right there in the nebulous cyber-world page on Wikipedia.
WOW! An open book secret that only a small percentage of humans aspire for.


**This data is from the Scriptures and Puranas of India.

Generic How-to instructions <Print and fold and store in clove compartment>:
Classic old-time 20 min Silent Meditation:

1 - Sit alone quietly, eyes closed, wait a moment . . . then

2 - Silently repeat a short mantra(mono-syllabic is Okay) or prayer-mantra.

3 - Repeat step #2 for 20 minutes*.

4 - At finish, direct attention to any points of discomfort in the body. End.


*During step #2-3, the mind will wander away from the task of the mantra repeatition. When that happens, simple return to repeating the mantra.

Dosage note:
Mantras are not a 'requisition forms',
Mantras are not incantations ---Mantras are not for fullfilling base desires or whimsical wonder-lusts ---Mantras are prayers to focus the attention away from external stimulai and thus meant to bring the meditator in union with the soul ['soul' rather than the gross-level body & material elements].
 
You think we have been "assigned" a self?

Knowing oneself, self-knowledge, is key to enlightenment.

"What one has become" could be way off track, depending upon your path in life...


That's exactly what I meant, thank you. That what we are is what we have become, by way of many changes throughout our lives. And what we have been assigned with, as human being, is the attribute of freewill. Our self is the Ego. Only God knows what it has become through changes caused by Id and Super Ego.
Ben
 
I kinda side with bhatijan, self is a construct. No matter how I look and where I look I never find it. Hume put it well in a Western sense, Chuangzi in the Eastern. If one focuses on self, one focuses on the duality (Ich/Du) and not the oneness.

If one really logically deconstructs things the self is merely an evolving set of experiences from first memories to now. A set of experiences that flow from one to another that are continuous only in the sense of emergence. I believe knowing this is what was meant by "know thyself".

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
 
Interestingly, the way Plato/Socrates used the phrase "Know Thy Self" simply meant 'know your place, do not become bigger than your britches'.
 
"Know Thy Self"

--> According to my belief system, we have both a lower self and a Higher Self. We think our lower self is our true self and we are wrong. In another thread we are discussing the idea of no mind. The way I see it, the meaning behind no mind is to stop listening to the constant irritating chatter of the lower mind, silence the lower mind (become no mind) and start listening to the Higher Mind. To me, to "know thyself" is for us to know our Higher Self.

On a similar note, my belief system interprets the meaning of the phrase "Our father who art in heaven" in this way: Our father refers to our Higher Self, our true self. The original Christian teaching is identical to the Tibetan Buddhist teaching of Om mani padme hum, the diamond (Higher Self) rising up from within the lotus plant (lower self and physical body).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om_mani_padme_hum
 
In Luciferianism the Self becomes the True Self through discarding the veils of the False Self by way of Individuation. When the True Self is revealed bit by bit it is directed towards eventual Apotheosis.


Will, True Will, Higher Self, Daemon (from Dragon Rouge)
Will is an important concept in contemporary magic. Will should not be understood as the mundane, everyday wants and whims of a person, but rather as the sum of the magician’s true personality.
Through magic the magician identifies and comes into contact with his/her True Will and refines his person. The term is written with a capital ‘W’ and is interchangeable with True Will. (Eriksson 2001:
120-123).

The magician’s guardian spirit is identified in Dragon Rouge as the manifestation of the magician’s True Will. The guardian spirit is also called the Daemon and the Higher Self. (Dragon Rouge 1996/
3: 1).

Aleister Crowley is often identified as the magician who made the concept of Will so important in contemporary magic, and, while this is true, the concept was used in much the same far earlier by
the 16-17th century esotericist, Jacob Böhme (Faivre 1994: 63).

Magical progress is often talked about in Dragon Rouge as an alchemical process in which the magician compresses his essence into an increasingly pure form. The result is the Black Diamond which is the magician’s compressed Higher Self, the magician having become a god.
 
Back
Top